HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-09-07; Planning Commission; Resolution 71921
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 7192
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM TO ALLOW FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 250 ROOM
HOTEL WITH ANCILLARY RESTAURANT AND GIFT SHOP WITHIN THE
PARKING LOT OF THE LEGOLAND CALIFORNIA RESORT THEME PARK ON
PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED NOIRTH OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD,
SOUTH OF CANNON ROAD, EAST OF ARMADA DRIVE AND WEST OF THE
CROSSINGS DRIVE IN THE MELLO II SEGMENT OF THE LOCAL COASTAL
PROGRAM AND IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 13.
CASE NAME: LEGOLAND HOTEL CALIFORNIA II AKA LLC H20
CASE NO.: SDP 15-26/CDP 15-50
WHEREAS, Merlin Entertainments Group US Holdings, LLC, "Owner/Developer," has filed
a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as
Lots 18 and 19 of Carlsbad Tract Map 94-09, Carlsbad Ranch -Units 2
and 3, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California,
according to map thereof no. 13408, filed in the Office of the County
Recorder of San Diego, April1, 1997 as file number 1997-147754
("the Property"); and
WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program was prepared in conjunction with said project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on September 7, 2016, hold a duly noticed public
hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and considering any
written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors relating to' the Mitigated
Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of
Carlsbad as follows:
A)
B)
That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission
hereby RECOMMENDS ADOPTION of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program, Exhibit "MND," according to Exhibits "Notice of
1
Intent (NOI}," and "Environmental Impact Assessment Form -Initial Study (EIA},"
2 attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
3 Findings:
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1.
2.
The Planning Commission ofthe City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
a.
b.
c.
d.
it has reviewed, analyzed, and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for SOP 15-26/CDP 15-50 -LEGOLAND
HOTEL CALIFORNIA II AKA LLC H20, the environmental impacts therein identified for this
project and any comments thereon prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project;
and
the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the Environmental Protection Procedures ofthe City
of Carlsbad; and
it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad;
and
based on the EIA and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence the project will
have a significant effect on the environment.
The Planning Commission has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the Developer
contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the exactions are imposed to
mitigate impacts caused by or reasonably related to the project, and the extent and the degree
of the exaction is in rough proportionality to the impact caused by the project.
Conditions:
1. Developer shall implement, or cause the implementation of, the Mitigated Negative Declaration
and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, SOP 15-26/CDP 15-50-LEGOLAND HOTEL
CALIFORNIA II AKA LLC H20.
PC RESO NO. 7192 -2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of
the City of Carlsbad, California, held on September 7, 2016, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Anderson, Goyarts, L'Heureux, Montgomery and Segall
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Black and Siekmann
ABSTAIN: None
VELYN ANDERSON, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATIEST:
~?t
DON NEU
City Planner
PC RESO NO. 7192 -3-
Initial Study
1. PROJECT NAME: LEGOLAND HOTEL CALIFORNIA II AKA LLC H20
2. PROJECT NO: SDP 15-26/CDP 15-50
3. LEAD AGENCY:
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
5. LEAD AGENCY CONTACT PERSON:
4. PROJECT APPLICANT:
Hofman Planning & Engineering
Regina Ochoa
3156 Lionshead Avenue, Suite 1
Carlsbad, CA 92010
Teri Delcamp, Senior Planner
Office Phone: 760-602-4611
Email: teri.delcamp@carlsbadca.gov
6. PROJECT LOCATION: 1 Legoland Drive, northeast corner of Palomar Airport Road and Armada Drive,
Carlsbad, San Diego County (APN 211-100-09-00)
7. GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: Visitor Commercial (VC)
8. ZONING: Commercial Tourist-Qualified Development Overlay (C-T-Q)
9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A request for approval of a Site Development Plan and a Coastal
Development Permit to construct a three-story, 250 room hotel and associated restaurant, gift
shop, and swimming pool within a portion of the Legoland California Resort parking lot. The
roof of the hotel does not exceed 42 feet in height, with allowable parapet protrusions not
exceeding 45 feet and a small tower projection at 55 feet. The hotel site is located to the west
of the existing hotel and the main pedestrian entrance to Legoland. The hotel is proposed to
be located within the existing parking lot to the west of the existing pedestrian entry plaza to
the Legoland Resort theme park and will require modification to the entry plaza and existing
parking lot. The project will remove 354 existing parking spaces. However, the existing parking
lot is adequate to serve the proposed hotel use. The parking lot for Legoland will continue to
have a surplus of parking spaces following construction of the hotel, totaling 245 spaces, so no
new parking lot area is required. Access for the hotel is proposed from the main Legoland
California Resort entrance from Legoland Drive via Cannon Road, and off The Crossings Drive
via Palomar Airport Road. The architectural theme of the proposed hotel is based on the LEGO
castle, with various towers, crenellated parapets and other castle-related features. The
development is located in Planning Area 4 of the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan.
10. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING/SURROUNDING LAND USIES: The project will be located on an existing
developed parking lot that was previously mass-graded for the development of the theme park. The
project will require remedial grading of fill areas and over-excavation of previously cut areas, and
proposes a net import of 5,062 cubic yards of material. The project site is surrounded by the Legoland
California Resort theme park, a hotel/resort and Open Space beyond to the north, Palomar Airport
Road and open space beyond to the south, The Crossings Drive and the Carlsbad municipal golf course
to the east, and Grand Pacific Resort hotel/restaurant and a professional office business park to the
west.
March 2016 -1-Initial Study
Project Name: LEGOLAND HOTEL CALIFORNIA II AKA LLC H20
Project No: SOP 15-26/CDP 15-50
11. OTHER REQUIRED AGENCY APPROVALS (i.e., permits, financing approval or participation agreements):
None.
12. PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION: Environmental Impact Report (EIR) 94-01 for the
Carlsbad Ranch/LEGOLAND Specific Plan Amendment (SCH # 95051001); Mitigated Negative
Declaration for SP 207{H)/LCPA 08-01/SDP 96-14(C)/CDP 96-16(C) that amended the Carlsbad Ranch
Specific Plan to allow hotels and associated uses within Planning Area 4 for Legoland, and approved
the construction of a 250-room hotel within the parking lot of Legoland (aka Legoland Hotel
California).
13. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project;
involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact/' or "Potentially Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
0 Aesthetics 0 Greenhouse Gas Emissions 0 Population & Housing
0 Agriculture & Forestry Resources 0 Hazards/Hazardous Materials 0 Public Services
0 Air Quality 0 Hydrology/Water Quality 0 Recreation
0 Biological Resources 0 Land Use & Planning IZl Transportation/Traffic
IZl Cultural Resources 0 Mineral Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems
IZl Geology/Soils IZl Noise IZI Mandatory Findings of Significanc
14. PREPARATION: The Initial Study for the subject project was prepared by:
'/e_ . ~ t/;/!6
TERI DELCAM~, s~A, . Date
March20l6 -2-Initial Study
Project Name: Legoland Hotel California II aka LtC H20
Project No: SOP 15-26/CDP 15-50
15. DETERMINATION: (to be completed by Leod Agency)
On the basis ofthls initlaJ evaluation:
0 I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a ~igniflcant effect on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
181 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described
herein have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
0 I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
0 I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact(s)" on the
environment, but at feast one potentially significant Impact 1) has been adequately analyzed
In an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earller analysis as described herein. A Negative Declaration
is required, but It must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
0 I find that although the proppsed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there WILL NOT be a significant effect In this case because all potentially significant effects (a)
have been analyzed adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated
pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION,
including revisions or mitigation measures that are Imposed upon the proposed project.
Therefore, nothing further Js required.
16. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The initial study for this project has been reviewed and the
e ironmental determination, indicated above, Is hereby approved.
17. APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES: This is to certify that I have reviewed
the mitigation measures in the Initial Study and concur with the addition of these measures to the
pro~ <[((t((C
Signature oa\'e \
Print Name
-3-Initial Study
Project Name: LEGOLAND HOTEL CALIFORNIA II AKA LLC H20
Project No: SOP 15-26/CDP 15-50
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported
by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact"
answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does
not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No
Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general
standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific
screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative
as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist
answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation,
or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that
an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the
determination is made, an EIR is required.
4. "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the
incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less
Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how
they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from "Earlier Analyses/' as
described in (5) below, may be cross-referenced).
5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect
has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case,
a brief discussion should identify the following:
a. Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b. Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the
scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,
and state whether such effects were addressed lby mitigation measures based on the earlier
analysis.
c. Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures
Incorporated/' describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the
earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for
potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside
document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is
substantiated.
7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals
contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8. The explanation of each issue should identify:
a. The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b. The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant.
9. Tribal consultation, if requested as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1, must begin prior
to release of a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or environmental impact report for a
project. Information provided through tribal consultation may inform the lead agency's assessment as to
whether tribal cultural resources are present, and the significance of any potential impacts to such
resources. Prior to beginning consultation, lead agencies may request information from the Native
American Heritage Commission regarding its Sacred Lands File, per Public Resources Code sections 5097.9
and 5097.94, as well as the California Historical Resources Information System administered by the
California Office of Historic Preservation.
March 2016 -4-Initial Study
I.
Project Name: LEGOLAND HOTEL CALIFORNIA II AKA LLC H20
Project No: SDP 15-26/CDP 15-50
... "'C ... u .r:.B u ra ra c. ... ra c. .§ -~ 5 .§
AESTHETICS > ... ... c. ... ... = t:: :; ~ 0 t:: t:: u ra ra ra ra ra -~ ~ ..c.!:! ~ £~ c. ... --.§ (IJ ·-(/) "2..; fl) ·c ... t::
Would the project: 0 .!!.0 ~ bO ·-"' b.O 0
0..111 !!liii:E ~Vi z
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? D D D ~
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited
to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State D D D ~
scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the D D D ~ site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare, which would D D D ~ adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
a-d) No Impact. The proposed project site is not identified as a scenic vista and no scenic resources
are present on the previously developed site. The site is developed with the existing Legoland California
Resort theme park and hotel, and the new hotel would not substantially degrade the existing urbanizing
visual character of the site. The hotel would not generate a significant new source of light since it is
located adjacent to the theme park within an existing illuminated parking lot .
... "'C ... u .r:.B u ra ra c. ... ra c. .§ -~ 5 .§
II. AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES* > ... ... c. ... ... = t:: t:: t:: ... t:: t:: u ~ ~ ~ .~ g ra ra ra ..s:: .!::! c. Cl;: +'~-..... -.§ (IJ ·-fl) ·c ... t:: V) c: ...:
Would the project: 0 .!!.0 (/) 0.0 ·-"' b.O 0 0..111 !!liii:E ~v; z
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared D D D ~ pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson D D D ~ Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to
their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to D D D ~
non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
*In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the
California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Mode/-1997 prepared by the California Department of Conservation
as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources
are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry
and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the
Forest Legacy Assessment Project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the
California Air Resources Board.)
a-c) No Impact. The project site is presently developed as a parking lot and pedestrian plaza for the
entrance to the Legoland California Resort theme park. Therefore, no impacts to agricultural lands or
operations will occur.
March 2016 -5-Initial Study
Ill. AIR QUALITY*
Project Name: LEGOLAND HOTEL CALIFORNIA II AKA LLC H20
Project No: SOP 15-26/CDP 15-50
.... "0 t: u ... ..r:.l!! ... a. .... ... a. E '§ 5 .§ >:: .... a. .... t: = c ; ; 0 c c .~ ra ... ... ... 1:~ -ss.s ..<: u a. ~tt= .§ GJ ·-en ·c .... c Cf) s: ...;
0 .!l!l "" bO ·-"' 0.0 0 GJ ·-Would the project: C. Ill ~iii~ .... "' z
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air D D IZl D quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an D D IZl D existing or projected air quality violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria
pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under
an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard D D IZl D
(including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant D D D IZl concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of D D IZl D people?
*where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district
may be relied upon to make the following determinations.
Local Air Quality: An area is designated in attainment when it is in compliance with the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) (federal) and/or California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS} (state).
These standards are set by the Environmental Protection Agency or the California Air Resources Board for
the maximum level of a given air pollutant that can exist in the outdoor air without unacceptable effects
on human health or the public welfare. The criteria pollutants of primary concern that are considered in
an air quality assessment include ozone (03}, nitrogen dioxide (N02), carbon monoxide (CO}, sulfur dioxide
(S02), particulate matter (PM10, and PM2.s}, lead and toxic air contaminants. Although there are no
ambient standards for VOCs or NOx, they are important as precursors to 03.
The San Diego Air Basin (SDAB) is designated as a marginal nonattainment area for the 2008 8-hour NAAQS
for 03. The SDAB is designated in attainment for all other criteria pollutants under the NAAQS with the
exception of PM10, which was determined to be unclassified. The SDAB is currently designated
nonattainment for 03 and particulate matter, PM1o and PM2.s, under the CAAQS. It is designated as
attainment for CAAQS for CO, N02, S02, lead and sulfates.
a) Less than Significant Impact. The project site is located in the SDAB. The periodic violations of
(NAAQS) in the SDAB, particularly for 03 in inland foothill areas, requires that a plan be developed
outlining the pollution controls that will be undertaken to improve air quality. In San Diego County, this
attainment planning process is embodied in the Regional Air Quality Strategies (RAQS} developed by the
San Diego County Air Pollution Control District (APCD} with regional growth projections provided by San
Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG}. The RAQS outlines the APCD's plans and regulatory control
measures designed to attain state air quality standards for ozone. The RAQS, which was initially adopted
in 1991, is updated on a triennial basis with the most recent update occurring in April 2009.
March 2016 -6-Initial Study
Project Name: LEGOLAND HOTEL CALIFORNIA II AKA LLC H20
Project No: SOP 15-26/CDP 15-50
The APCD has also developed the SDAB's input into the State Implementation Plan (SIP) which is required
under the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) for pollutants that are designated ·as being in nonattainment of
national air quality standards for the air basin. The SIP relies on the same information from SANDAG to
develop emission inventories and emission control strategies that are included in the attainment plan for
the air basin.
The proposed project relates to the SIP and/or RAQS through the land use and growth assumptions that
are incorporated into the air quality planning document. These growth assumptions are based on each
city's and the County's general plan. The project is within the scope of development that was anticipated
in the SANDAG growth projections and Carlsbad's General Plan in 2009 used to develop the RAQS and SIP.
Operation of the project will result in emissions that were considered as a part of the RAQS growth
projections. As such, the proposed project is not anticipated to conflict with either the RAQS or the SIP.
Additionally, the operational emissions from the project are below the screening levels, and subsequently
will not violate ambient air quality standards.
b) Less than Significant Impact. The APCD operates a network of ambient air monitoring stations
throughout San Diego County. Due to its proximity to Carlsbad with similar geographic and climatic
characteristics, the Del Mar-Mira Costa College monitoring station concentrations of 8-hour and 1-hour
0 3 are considered most representative of 03 in Carlsbad. The Escondido-East Valley Parkway monitoring
station is the nearest location where PM1o, PM2.s, N02, and CO concentrations are monitored. TheEl Cajon
-Redwood Avenue monitoring station is the nearest location where S02 concentrations are monitored.
Data available for these monitoring sites from 2010 through 2013 indicate that the most recent air quality
violations recorded were as follows: the 1-Hour 03 concentration did not exceed the state standard any
time during the years 2010 through 2013; the 8-Hour 03 concentration exceeded the state standard in
2010, 2011, and 2012, and exceeded the federal standard in 2012; the 24-Hour PM1o concentration
exceeded the state standard in 2009; the state annual PM1o standard was exceeded in 2013; and the
federal standard for 24-Hour PM2.s standard was exceeded in 2012 and 2013. Air quality within the region
was in compliance with both CAAQS and NAAQS for N02, CO, and S02 during this monitoring period.
Grading and Construction: The project involves remedial grading and construction of a hotel within an
existing parking lot which includes emissions associated with grading and construction. Emissions would
be minimized through standard construction measures, storm water pollution prevention plan
requirements, Best Management Practices (BMPs), and when applicable, the California Green Building
Standards Code that would reduce fugitive dust debris, emissions and other criteria pollutant emissions
during grading and construction. Therefore emissions from the construction phase would be minimal,
temporary and localized, resulting in pollutant emissions that are not anticipated to significantly
contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation.
Operations: Vehicle trip emissions associated with travel to and from the project will result in 2,000 ADTs
in a worst-case scenario assuming all ofthe trips are solely for hotel guests. Realistically, the vast majority
of hotel vehicle trips will already be trips to the Legoland California Resort theme park. Thus, vehicle trip
emissions associated with the project are minimal and are not anticipated to significantly contribute to
an existing or projected air quality violation.
c) Less than Significant Impact. Air quality emissions associated with the project include emissions
from grading and construction. However, grading and construction operations associated with the project
would minimize emissions through standard construction measures, storm water pollution prevention
plan measures and best management practices, and Green Building Code as noted in b). Other proposed
March 2016 -7-Initial Study
Project Name: LEGOLAND HOTEL CALIFORNIA II AKA LLC H20
Project No: SOP 15-26/CDP 15-50
or future projects within the surrounding area were evaluated and none of the projects emit significant
amounts of pollutants or exceed AQMD or APCD standards. Operational emissions associated with the
project are anticipated to be consistent with the RAQS and SIP and do not exceed APCD standards.
The proposed project would represent a contribution to a cumulatively considerable potential net
increase in emissions throughout the air basin. As described above, however, emissions associated with
the proposed project would be minimal. Given the limited emissions potentially associated with the
proposed project, air quality would be essentially the same whether or not the proposed project is
implemented. According to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h)(3), the proposed project's incremental
contribution to the cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable. Any impact is assessed as less than
significant.
d) No Impact. Sensitive receptors include schools, hospitals, playgrounds, child care centers, athletic
facilities, long-term health care facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, retirement homes
or other facilities that house individuals with health conditions that would be adversely impacted by
changes in air quality. As noted above, the proposed project would not result in substantial pollutant
emissions or concentrations. In addition, there are no sensitive receptors located in the vicinity of the
project. The project itself is not proposed in the vicinity of an existing pollution source that would expose
sensitive receptors within the project to pollutants. No impact is assessed.
e) Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project could generate objectionable odors from
construction, vehicles and/or equipment exhaust from volatile organic compounds, ammonia, carbon
dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, methane, alcohols, disulfides, dusts or other pollutants during the construction
or operation of the project. Such exposure would be in trace amounts, localized in the immediate area,
temporary and would generally occur at magnitudes that would not affect substantial numbers of people.
Therefore, impacts associated with odors during construction or operation would be considered less than
significant.
.... -a tl u !II GJ !II .t: .... Q. .... !II Q.
E ·~ 0 .§
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES >:: .... Q. .... .... = 1: ~ ; 0 1: 1: u !II !II !II !II !II -.:; u -s!E.E -5~ Q.
s:::: ti= .§ GJ ·-"' ·c ... 1: "' 1: •
Would the project: 0 .!!!l V) bD ~ U) 0.0 0 ~iii:E GJ ·-z O..VI -' VI
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, D D D ~
policies, or regulations, or by California Department of Fish and
Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian, aquatic or
wetland habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in D D D ~ local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands
as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but D D D ~ not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
March 2016 -8-Initial Study
IV.
Project Name: LEGOLAND HOTEL CALIFORNIA II AKA LLC H20
Project No: SOP 15-26/CDP 15-50
.... "'C .... u GJ u "' "' a. .<: .... a. .... "' E "§ 5 .§
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES >:; .... a. .... .... = c: ~ ; 0 c: c: u £ ~ "' "' "' ~¢E -E~ a. s::::tt: .§ GJ ·-en "2 ,.; V) "2 .... c:
Would the project: ~8f en bD ·-"' 00 0 ~iii2 GJ ·-z _, "'
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident
or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native D D D IZl resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological D D D IZl resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved D D D IZl
local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
a-f) No Impact. The site is located within a developed vehicular parking lot. There are no species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service onsite or within
the adjoining properties. There is no riparian, aquatic or wetland habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service onsite. There are no federally protected wetlands as defined
by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act on the property. The property is not known to be subject to the
movement of any n~tive resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or be within established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors or contain native wildlife nursery sites. Since the property is
devoid of animal or plant species that could be considered as sensitive or protected, the development of
the site will not conflict with the provisions of the City's adopted Habitat Management Plan .
.... "'C .... u u "' .<: 2l "' a. ~ ~ a. E 3:: 0 .§
v. CULTURAL/PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES >:; .... a. .... .... = c: ; ; 0 c: c: u ~ ~ "' "' "' ~ .!::! ~ ..c -~ a. c ~ +"~-.... -.§ GJ ·-II) "2 .... c: U'l c ..,;
Would the project: 0 .~ Ul b.O ·-"' 00 0 ~iii2 GJ ·-z 11.1.11 _,..,
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical D D D IZl resource as defined in §15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an D IZl D D archeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or D IZl D D site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of D D IZl D dedicated cemeteries?
e) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal
cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 ' as either: D IZl D D 1) a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically
defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred
place, or object with cultural value to a California Native
March 2016 -9-Initial Study
Project Name: LEGOLAND HOTEL CALIFORNIA II AKA LLC H20
Project No: SDP 15-26/CDP 15-50
tj "C tj
"' ..c: .l!! "' c. .... "' c.
E "§: 5 ~ v. CULTURAL/PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES >:; .... c. .... .... = r::: ; ~ 0 r::: r::: u "' "' "' "' "' +i u -E~E .J: -~ c. c li= .... -~ QJ ·-""·c ..; "" ·c .... r:::
Would the project: 0 .!!!' U'l 0.0 ·-"' 0.0 0 ~iii2 (U ·-z 0..111 ..... Ill
American Tribe, that is listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical Resources, or on a local register
of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code
section 5020.1(k); or
2) a resource determined by a lead agency, in its discretion and
supported by substantial evidence, to be significant according
to the historical register criteria in Public Resources Code
section 5024.1 (c) while considering the significance of the
resource to a California Native American tribe.
a) No Impact. There are no historical resources as defined in §15064.5 present on the site, so no
impact is assessed.
b,c) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The project's geotechnical report prepared
by Leighton and Associates, Inc., states that the prior mass grading of the site for the development of the
theme park resulted in a cut to fill transition transecting the hotel site from north to south. Soils to the
west of the transition are documented fill of approximately 22 feet, whereas to the east of the transition
is shallow documented fill over Old Paralic Deposits (OPD) and the Santiago Formation. The majority of
the hotel footprint is to the east ofthe transition line, and will be located on OPD; however, the Santiago
Formation lies beneath the OPD at between 13 and 15 feet below existing grade. The geotechnical report
recommends that the previously cut area be over-excavated to a depth of 12 feet or 10 feet below the
lowest footing bottom elevation. Both OPD and the Santiago Formation are highly sensitive for
paleontological resources. Thus, the project grading has the potential to disturb soils which may contain
fossils.
EIR 94-01 contained mitigation measures relating to grading of previously undisturbed soils, requiring an
archaeologist and a paleontologist to monitor ground-disturbing activities. Given the recommendations
of the geotechnical report, the project will grade previously un-disturbed OPD and Santiago Formation
soils. To reduce impacts to potential archaeological resources to a level that is less than significant,
mitigation measures are included that require the applicant to retain a qualified archaeologist to be
present during grading operations in native soils on the east side of the cut to fill transition, to be
empowered to halt or redirect grading in order to evaluate any unanticipated archaeological resources,
to coordinate with the Native American monitor, and submit periodic reports to the City Planner and a
final report to the South Coastal Information Center. To reduce the potential paleontological impact to a
level that is less than significant, mitigation measures are included that require the applicant to retain a
qualified paleontologist to be present at least periodically during grading operations on the east side of
the cut to fill transition, to be empowered to halt or redirect grading in order to evaluate and/or to recover
exposed fossils for potential curation, and submit periodic reports to the City Planner.
d) Less than Significant. The site is not a dedicated cemetery and there is no evidence that the
project site would contain human remains located outside of a dedicated cemetery. However, in the
unlikely event that human remains are encountered, the discussion under b and c above and e below
adequately address and mitigate any potential for significant impacts. Thus, impacts under this category
are considered to be less than significant.
March 2016 -10-Initial Study
Project Name: LEGOLAND HOTEL CALIFORNIA II AKA LLC H20
Project No: SDP 15-26/CDP 15-50
e) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The Planning Division notified the San Luis
Rey Band of Mission Indians and the Soboba Band of Luiseiio Indians, which are traditionally and culturally
affiliated California Native American tribes that had requested notice of proposed projects, on January
19, 2016. The notices were sent before the project was determined to be complete. The San Luis Rey
Band of Mission Indians responded within 30 days on February 1, 2016, and requested consultation. The
Soboba Tribe of Luiseiio Indians sent a separate letter to the city on January 19, 2016, stating that they
wish to defer consultation for all projects under AB 52 to the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians.
Consultation between the city and the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians (the Tribe) began at a meeting
on February 16, 2016. The city sent copies of the geotechnical report for the project and the MND for the
prior hotel project to the Tribe. The Tribe expressed concerns relating to the grading of previously
undisturbed soils given the relative proximity of other sites where Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs) have
been encountered in the past. The Tribe requested additional information on earthwork quantities that
was pending submittal of revised project plans. That information was provided to the Tribe when it
became available. The city also requested and received the results of a Sacred Lands File search from the
California Native American Heritage Commission. The Sacred Lands File search was negative for recorded
sacred sites in the project area.
Based on the tribal consultation and the city's analysis of evidence pursuant to California Register of
Historical Resources criteria while considering potential significance to the Tribe, the city has determined
that there is a potential that a TCR may be present within the project site, which may be impacted if it is
encountered during grading. Mitigation measures were discussed during consultation or have been
considered by the city in order to minimize impacts on any potential TCR that may be present on the site.
Mitigation measures have been included to require the project developer to enter into a pre-excavation
agreement with the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians so that a Luiseiio Native American monitor is
present when the archaeologist is on site during grading operations in native soils on the east side of the
cut to fill transition in order to identify and appropriately treat any potential TCR if encountered.
Incorporation of these mitigation measures will reduce the project's possible impact on potential TCRs to
a less than significant level.
... "C ... u
.£:. .l!l u ra ra a. ... ra a. E "§ 0 .§
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS >:;::; ... a. ... ... = c: c: c: ... s:: c: u ~ ~ ~ -~ ~ ra ra ra £¥ a. eli= ...... -.§ QJ ·-U) "2 ....: .tl) '2 ... c:
Would the project: 0 .!!~ VI bO •-"' "" 0 ~iii2 QJ ·-z C.V'l ...IV'l
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other D ~ D D
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? D ~ D D
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? D D D ~
iv. Landslides? D D D ~
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? D D D ~
March 2016 -11-Initial Study
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Project Name: LEGOLAND HOTEL CALIFORNIA II AKA LLC H20
Project No: SDP 15-26/CDP 15-50
.... -o .... u ..c:S u 10 10 Q. .... 10 Q.
E "§ 5 .§ >:; .... Q. .... .... = c c c ~ c c u -~ ~ ~ -~ ~ 10 10 10
-.5~ Q. cc;:: ......... -.§ Qj ·-, "2 ...,; Cl) "2 .... c
Would the project: 0 .!!.0 ~~~ "' 00 0 O..Vl ~Vi z
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result D ~ D D in on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction, or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Section 1802.3.2 of the
California Building Code (2007), creating substantial risks to life or D D ~ D
property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic
tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers D D D ~
are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
a.i-a.ii) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. An updated geotechnical investigation of the
project site, Geotechnical Update Report, Proposed Castle Hotel Expansion, Legoland Theme Park, was
prepared by Leighton and Associates, Inc. (November 23, 2015) to provide subsurface information and
geotechnical recommendations specific to the proposed site. According to this report, the subject site is
not located within any Earthquake Fault Zones as created by the Alquist-Priolo Act, nor are there any
known major or active faults on or in the immediate vicinity of the site. Because of the lack of known
active faults on the site, the potential for surface rupture at the site is considered low. The main seismic
hazard that may affect the site is ground shaking from one of the active regional faults, with the nearest
known active fault being the Rose Canyon Fault Zone located 4.7 miles west of the site. A mitigation
measure requires the project to implement the recommendations contained within the Geotechnical
Update Report, Proposed Castle Hotel Expansion, Legoland Theme Park, prepared by Leighton and
Associates, Inc., (November 23, 2015) to reduce the potential geotechnical impacts to a level of less than
significant.
a.iii-a.iv) No Impact. The topography of the site is relatively flat with elevations ranging from
approximately 145 feet above mean sea level (msl) to approximately 155 feet msl. The project's
geotechnical report states that the onsite soils are not considered liquefiable due to their dense condition
and absence of shallow ground water condition. The report also notes that because of the low
susceptibility to liquefaction, the potential for lateral spread induced by ground shaking is low. Finally,
the report states that no active landslides or indications of deep-seated landsliding were noted during
previous grading, and there is no evidence of ancient landslides or slope instability existing on the subject
site.
b) No Impact. The topography of the site is relatively flat. Regardless, the project's compliance with
standards in the City's Excavation and Grading Ordinance that prevent erosion through pad and slope
planting and installation of temporary erosion control means will avoid substantial soil erosion impacts.
c) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. See response to a.iii-a.iv above regarding no
potential for secondary seismic-related or landslide impacts. However, as discussed in Section V.c, the
geotechnical report recommends 10-12 feet of over-excavation on the easterly portion ofthe project site
to address the cut-fill transition. This will address potential impacts associated with differential settling
March 2016 -12-Initial Study
Project Name: LEGOLAND HOTEL CALIFORNIA II AKA LLC H20
Project No: SOP 15-26/CDP 15-50
of the proposed hotel improvements, and will allow for a standard foundation system. The geotechnical
report also notes that the upper two feet of previously documented fill on the westerly portion of the site
with is weathered or disturbed and should be removed and reprocessed prior to the placement of
additional fill or construction of the new improvements. The mitigation measure requiring the project to
implement the recommendations contained within the Leighton and Associates, Inc., geotechnical report
will reduce the potential geotechnical impacts to a level of less than significant.
d) Less than Significant Impact. The project's geotechnical report states the majority of soils on the
site, including those that will be excavated in the Old Paralic Deposits and Santiago Formation, have a low
to medium expansion potential. However, the report recommends that laboratory testing be conducted
upon completion of grading for the proposed hotel pad to determine the actual expansion potential of
the finish grade soil at the site. Compliance with the recommendations of the geotechnical report, as
required by the mitigation measure noted above, will ensure that potential impacts associated with any
unanticipated expansive soils will be less than significant.
e) No Impact. The proposed project does not propose septic tanks and will utilize the public sewer
system. Therefore, there will be no impacts involving soils that support the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems.
.. "'CI .. u ..c: .2l u ra ra Q. .. ra Q.
E -~ 5 .5
VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS >:;::; .... Q. .. .. = c c c ~ c c u ~ ~ ~ -~ ~ ra ra ra ..c .!:l Q. C'i= +"~-........ .5 QJ ·-II) c ,.; VI ·c .. c
Would the project: 0 .!!." ~ llO ·-"' 1:10 0 ~iii~ QJ ·-z D. VI .... .,.,
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, D D ~ D that may have a significant impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for D D ~ D the purposes of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
a,b) Less than Significant Impact. The City of Carlsbad General Plan and Climate Action Plan (CAP)
adopted in 2015 address reduction of GHG emissions. The CAP has identified a CEQA significance
threshold for projects of 900 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MT C02e). The project is expected
to generate GHG emissions in the short-term as a result of construction emissions and in the long-term as
a result of automobile trips and energy consumption. Based on the GHG emission calculations contained
within the Legoland Hotel Project Greenhouse Gas Analysis (GHG study) prepared for the project by Rincon
(June 2016), the proposed project under a Business as Usual scenario would generate a total of 4,439 MT
C02e per year. Of this, automobile trips would represent 1,842 MT C02e emissions; energy consumption
would represent 2,506 MT C02e emissions; and project-related construction emissions would represent
22 MT C02e emissions per year averaged over a 30-year period.
The GHG study analyzed various mechanisms and measures that would reduce the amount of emissions.
These measures include compliance with Green Building Code requirements, enhanced building
commissioning, using efficient LED lighting, low water flow fixtures and low water use landscaping,
providing infrastructure for EV charging stations, implementing a Transportation Demand Management
(TDM) plan and strategies (addressed as transportation mitigation under Section XVI,
Transportation/Traffic), and reduction of vehicle trips through shared trips to the hotel and theme park
because the hotel is on-site directly adjacent to the theme park entrance.
March 2016 -13-Initial Study
Project Name: LEGOLAND HOTEL CALIFORNIA II AKA LLC H20
Project No: SOP 15-26/CDP 15-50
The GHG study indicates that implementation of most of these measures (water use reduction, LED
lighting, TOM for employees, parking reductions and proximity to transit, and waste diversion) would
reduce the C02e emissions by 976 MT per year, which is a 22 percent reduction. The 22 percent reduction
in the project's GHG emissions is consistent with the City of Carlsbad's CAP. Some of the measures were
not included in the reduction assessment (enhanced commissioning, EV charging station infrastructure
and possible future installation of stations, and full compliance with current Title 24 requirements), and
will further reduce C02e emissions. Therefore, impacts from GHG emissions on the environment are
considered to be less than significant because the project will be conditioned to include the project
features described in the GHG study, and the Transportation/Traffic mitigation measures address the TDM
strategies.
.... "C t: u ra ..c: 2l ra Q. .... ra Q.
E ·;: l5 .§
VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS >';:: .... Q. .... .... = c c c ... c c u ra ra ta ~ 8 ra ra ra ·~ u ..s::: -~ Q. ctt: ':5t;::.E ...... .§ Qj ·-II) "i: +i II) ·c .... c
Would the project: 0 .!!.0 II) b.O ·-., 0.0 0 ~iii:!: Qj ·-z 11.11'1 _, 11'1
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous D D D ~
materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving D D D ~
the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile D D D ~
of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section D D D ~ 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the
public or environment?
e) For a project within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan
has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or D D D ~ public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in D D D ~
the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted D D D ~ emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are D D D ~ adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed
with wildlands?
a-h) No Impact. The project is a hotel/restaurant building. Other than common household hazardous
materials like household cleaners, paint, and glues, etc. there will not be a significant presence of
hazardous materials. Therefore the project will not create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials; create a significant
March 2016 -14-Initial Study
Project Name: LEGOLAND HOTEL CALIFORNIA II AKA LLC H20
Project No: SDP 15-26/CDP 15-50
hazard to the public or environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment; or emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school. The project site is not a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would not create a significant
hazard to the public or environment. The project site is within the airport influence area of the McClellan-
Palomar Airport, but is not located within the flight activity zone or runway protection zone. Moreover,
a Notice Concerning Aircraft Environmental Impacts was previously required as a condition ofthe original
approval and was recorded on August 14, 1997. The property is not within close proximity of a private
airstrip. An emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan has been adopted for the project
site and the plan will be modified to include the hotel/restaurant. The project does not interfere with the
adopted plan. The site is not adjacent to or near an area where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas .
... ""C ... u u "' .~:..2! "' Q. ... "' Q.
E "§ 5 .E
IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY >:; ... Q. ... ... = 1: 1: 1: .. 1: 1: u ~ G ca G 8 "' "' "' :5~ Q. t:t;:: -:Ss.E .E CIJ ·-Ln ·c ... 1: U) s:::: ..,;
Would the project: 0 .!!!1 en b.O ·-"' bQ 0 ~iii~ CIJ ·-z 0..<1) ...IV)
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge D D ~ D requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with ground water recharge such that there would
be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local ground D D D ~ water table level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby
wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land
uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern ofthe site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, D D ~ D in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation
on-or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,
or substantially increase the flow rate or amount (volume) of D D ~ D
surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on-or
off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or D D ~ D
provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? D D ~ D
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a
Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or D D D ~
other flood delineation map?
h) Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would D D D ~ impede or redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the D D D ~
failure of a levee or dam?
March 2016 -15-Initial Study
Project Name: LEGOLAND HOTEL CALIFORNIA II AKA LLC H20
Project No: SDP 15-26/CDP 15-50
IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project:
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
t;
"' a. .E > .... = c "' "' ~~
QJ ·-.... c
0 .!!!1 0..111
D D D
t;
"' a. .E
0 z
a) Less than Significant Impact. The project is required by law to comply with all federal, state and
local water quality regulations, including the Clean Water Act, California Administrative Code Title 23,
specific basin plan objectives identified in the "Water Quality Control Plan for San Diego Basin" (WQCP},
and the city's Standard Urban Storm Water Management Plan {SUSMP). The WQCP contains specific
objectives for the Carlsbad Hydrologic Unit, which includes the requirement to comply with National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and the use of Best Management Practices (BMPs).
Construction activities for this project are covered under state-wide construction permit Order No. 2009-
0009-DWQ issued by the State Water Resource Control Board Permit. As part of the permit requirements,
the applicant will prepare and submit a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for the project.
Through each phase of construction, the SWPPP will identify specific erosion control and storm water
pollution prevention plan practices that will be implemented to protect downstream water quality. Post-
development activities for this project are covered under Order No. R9-2007-0001 issued by the California
Regional Water Quality Control Board San Diego Region. As part of these requirements, the applicant
must prepare and submit a Storm Water Quality Management Plan (SWQMP) addressing what treatment
Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be constructed to treat the post-development runoff from the
project.
The preliminary Priority Development Project Storm Water Quality Management Plan for LLC H20
prepared by DCI Engineers (June 24, 2016} addresses how pollutants from this project will be reduced,
captured, filtered, and/or treated prior to discharge from the project site, and the project will be
developed in accordance with the final SWQMP to be approved by the city. Through this process, the
project will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements and impacts are
therefore considered to be less than significant.
b) No Impact. This project does not propose to directly draw any groundwater. The project will be
served via existing public water distribution lines adjacent to the site.
c-f) Less than Significant Impact. The Preliminary Hydrology Report for LLC H20 prepared by DCI
Engineers (June 24, 2016} for the project indicates that the proposed drainage design does not adversely
affect surrounding properties and the storm drain system adequately drains the proposed project in a
100-year storm event. Construction of the proposed project improvements is required by law to comply
with all federal, state and local water quality regulations, including the Clean Water Act and associated
NPDES regulations and temporary impacts associated with the construction operation will be mitigated.
The total post development runoff discharging from the site will remain at or below the pre-development
amounts. The project provides positive drainage away from the building while conveying peak flows into
the on-site storm drain system. Because the percolation test at six locations showed zero to very low
percolation on the site, infiltration is not feasible for the project. Thus, on-site drainage flows will enter
catch basins and underground piping leading to a sub-surface detention vault that will handle
hydromodification management. Runoff will be treated within a Modular Wetlands System prior to
discharge into public storm drains. Therefore, the project will not violate any water quality standards,
March 2016 -16-Initial Study
Project Name: LEGOLAND HOTEL CALIFORNIA II AKA LLC H20
Project No: SDP 15-26/CDP 15-50
deplete groundwater supplies or quality, substantially alter existing drainage patterns, cause substantial
erosion or flooding, or significantly impact the capacity of storm water drainage systems.
The project's SWQMP indicates that Priority Development Project structural storm water BMPs are
incorporated into the project design to address water quality for the project. BMPs will be implemented
during construction and operational phases, which specifically address sediments, nutrients, trash and
debris, oxygen demanding substances, oil and grease, bacteria and viruses. The project will not
significantly increase pollutant discharges and will not alter the water quality of receiving surface waters.
As a result of these project design features, there will be a less than significant impact to water quality,
site erosion, and pollutant discharge, and no receiving water quality will be adversely affected through
implementation of the proposed project.
g-j) No Impact. No housing is proposed. The project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard
area according to Flood Insurance Rate Maps, Map Nos. 06073C0764G, 06073C0768G, 06073C1030G and
06073C1035G (all May 16, 2012. Furthermore, based on the distance between the site and large, open
bodies of water, and given the elevation of the site with respect to sea level (145 to 155 feet above mean
sea level), the possibility of seiche, tsunami, or mudflow is considered to be low .
... '0 ... u QJ u "' ..c: ... "' c. ... "' c. E ·~ 5 .5
X. LAND USE AND PLANNING >= ... c. ... ... = c c c ... c c u ~ ~ ~ -~ ~ "' "' "' ..s:: -~ c. c t;: .... --... -.5 QJ ·-~ "fo ~ U') ·c .... c
Would the project: 0 .!!!1 .. tlO 0
O..V> ~;;;:!: ~Vi z
a) Physically divide an established community? D D D IZI
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of
an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not
limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or D D D IZI
zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural D D D IZI community conservation plan?
a) No Impact. The project site is a single parcel of land on the site ofthe existing Legoland California
Resort theme park. Given the project's location and size, it is clear that it will not divide an established
community.
b) No Impact. Consistent with the zoning of the property which is Commercial Tourist and allows
hotels with the processing of a Site Development Plan, the Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan was previously
amended to allow hotel uses within Planning Area 4 (Lego Theme Park). The Specific Plan is the
Implementing Ordinance for the Local Coastal Program (LCP), and the LCP was also amended accordingly.
The City of Carlsbad has coastal permitting authority for projects that are consistent with and implement
the Specific Plan and the LCP, and this project meets these objectives. Per the Carlsbad Ranch Specific
Plan, the maximum height limit is 35 feet, but increases in height up to 45 feet for the roof and
architectural projections are allowed with increased setbacks. The proposed hotel roof height varies from
about 31 feet to 42 feet, and parapets reach a maximum height of 45 feet (with one small area of
exception discussed below). Legoland has provided the required increased setbacks for the requested
additional height. The Specific Plan also allows for limited architectural projections up to 55 feet, provided
the area of those projections does not exceed three percent of the total roof area. These requests require
March 2016 -17-Initial Study
Project Name: LEGOLAND HOTEL CALIFORNIA II AKA LLC H20
Project No: SDP 15-26/CDP 15-50
City Council approval of the project, and approval is based on findings that the limited projections up to
55 feet are not usable floor area, do not screen equipment, will not impact adjacent properties, and are
necessary for design excellence. The crenellated tower above the hotel's main entrance reaches a height
of 55 feet. This tower's total area is 775 square feet, which is only 1.5 percent of the hotel's total roof
area and is well below the allowable three percent. This small architectural projection meets all of the
required findings for approval. There is no other applicable land use plan, policy, regulation, or habitat
conservation plan affecting this property that is adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect.
c) No Impact. The project is not subject to the habitat preservation and mitigation measures of the
Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan.
... ""0 ... u u ~ Q) ~ Q. .s::: ... Q. ... "' .E "3: 0 .E
XI. MINERAL RESOURCES > ... ... Q. ... ... = c c c ~ c c u
"' "' ~ .~ § "' "' "' ·~ u ...c:: -~ 0. s::~ ....... -....... .E Q) ·-V'J ·c: . VI ·c ... c
Would the project: 0 .9fl ~ ~~ OJ .9fl 0
C..V) --' V) z
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that
would be of future value to the region and the residents of the D D D IZl
State?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific D D D IZl
plan, or other land use plan?
a-b) No Impact. Carlsbad is devoid of any non-renewable energy resources of economic value to the
region and the residents of the State. Mineral resources within the city are no longer being utilized and
extracted as exploitable natural resources. Therefore, no mineral resource impacts will occur as a result
of any project. (EIR 13-02, page 3.15-1}
.... ""0 .... u Q) u ~ .s::: .... ~ Q. .... ~ Q.
.E -~ 0 .E
XII. NOISE > .... .... Q. c "E t; = c ; ; 0 -! {9 "' ~ ~ -5~.5 ..c -~ Q. eli: ........ .E Q) ·-"'"2 ...z r.n "2 .... c
Would the project result in: 0 .!!!' ~ ~~ "' ... 0 Qj ·-C.. Ill .... Ill z
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of
standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance D IZl D D
or applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne D D IZl D vibration or groundbourne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the D D D IZl project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the D D IZl D
project?
March 2016 -18-Initial Study
Project Name: LEGOLAND HOTEL CALIFORNIA II AKA LLC H20
Project No: SDP 15-26/CDP 15-50
.... "'0 .... u .<:.~ u "' "' Q. .... "' Q.
.§ "§: 5 .§
XII. NOISE > .... .... Q. .... .... = c c c ~ c c u ~ ~ ~ -~ ~ "' "' "' -s~ Q. c:ti: ......... -.§ Ql ·-"" '2 ...,; (/) ·c .... c
Would the project result in: 0 .!!!l 11) bO ·-"' ao 0
D.. VI ~iii~ ~Vi z
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public D IZl D D airport or public use airport, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project area to D D D IZl
excessive noise levels?
a,e) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The project site is located within the Airport
Land Use Compatibility Plan, McClellan-Palomar Airport (ALUCP) and will subject guests and employees
on the exterior of the hotel to noise levels up to 68 CNEL. While noise impacts are identified, the ALUCP
requires that the interior noise levels would need to be attenuated to 45 CNEL for the hotel use and 50
CNEL for the restaurant and retail uses. Exterior noise levels are determined to be acceptable by the
ALUCP for the proposed hotel land use. A mitigation measure has been added to the project to
demonstrate attenuation of interior noise levels to 45 CNEL prior to building permit issuance, which will
reduce potential impacts related to noise levels to a less than significant level.
b,d) Less than Significant Impact. The anticipated grading operations associated with the proposed
hotel will result in a temporary and minor increase in groundbourne vibration and ambient noise levels.
Following the completion of grading, ambient noise level and vibrations are expected to return to pre-
existing levels. Therefore, impacts are considered to be less than significant.
c) No Impact. The project consists of the construction of a hotel on an existing theme park site
which is not in proximity to any residential uses. The operation of the hotel will not have a measurable
permanent increase in ambient noise above existing noise levels already associated with the theme park.
Therefore, no permanent ambient noise impacts will occur.
f) No Impact. The project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip; therefore, no impact
is assessed.
.... "'0 .... u .<:. ~ u "' "' Q. .... "' Q.
E "§: 5 .§
XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING >-;::; .... Q. .... .... = c c c ~ c c u ~ G ca e 8 "' "' "' .c -~ Q.
C¢: ..S~.E ......... .§ Ql ·-"' c ....; U') '2 .... c
Would the project: 0 .!!!l ~ tu) ·-"' ao 0 ~iii~ Ql ·-z D.. VI -'Ill
a) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly (for example,
by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for D D D IZl
example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the D D D IZl construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
March 2016 -19-Initial Study
Project Name: LEGOLAND HOTEL CALIFORNIA II AKA LLC H20
Project No: SOP 15-26/CDP 15-50
... "C ... u s:. .2l u <a <a Q. ... <a Q. E ·;: s .§
XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING >:: ... Q. ... ... = c c c ... c c u ~ B ~ -~ ~ <a <a <a
.t::. -~ Q. c<o:: +'~-... -.§ Ql ·-VI C ~ , ·c ... c
Would the project: 0 .!!P V1 bO ·-"' 0.0 0 ~iii:!: Ql ·-z C.. VI -'VI
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the D D D ~ construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
a-c) No Impact. The project does not propose residential development or the extension of existing
roads or infrastructure which would induce growth. The project is not removing or displacing existing
residential units or persons.
... "C ... u s:. .2l u <a <a Q. ... <a Q.
.§ ·;: 5 .§ > ... ... Q. ... ...
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES = c i ; 0 c c u ~ ~ ra ra <a £~.5 -:S~ Q.
C't= .§ Ql ·-V) "2 . ""·c ... c II) b.O.:!::::: "' 0.0 0 .!!P 0 ~iii:!: C!l ·-z Would the project: C.. VI -'VI
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered government facilities, a
need for new or physically altered government facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response
times, or other performance objectives for any ofthe public
services:
i. Fire protection? D D D ~
ii. Police protection? D D D ~
iii. Schools? D D D ~
iv. Parks? D D D ~
v. Other public facilities? D D D ~
a.i-a.v) No Impact. The proposed project will not affect the provision and/or availability of public facilities
(i.e., fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, etc.). The proposed project shall be subject to the
conditions and facility service level requirements within the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 13,
including a $0.40 per square foot of non-residential development fee to be collected at building permit
issuance. The Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan EIR 94-01 included a mitigation measure for projects to submit
security plans for review and approval by the Carlsbad Police Department. The Legoland California Resort
theme park has on record an Emergency Action plan. To ensure compliance with the previously adopted
mitigation measure, the project includes a condition requiring a revised Emergency Action plan addressing
the second hotel to be submitted for review and approval by the Police Department prior to building
permit issuance. Therefore, no significant public service impacts will occur.
March 2016 -20-Initial Study
Project Name: LEGOLAND HOTEL CALIFORNIA II AKA LLC H20
Project No: SOP 15-26/CDP 15-50
.... "'C .... v
..c:-2l
v "' "' c. .... "' c. .5 "§: ~ .5
XV. RECREATION > .... .... c. .... t: = <: ; ; 0 <: <: -2 ~ "' "' "' -s=E -:5~ c. r:::t;: .5 Cll ·-f/1 ·c ...: U'l ·c .... <:
0 .!!." VI 00 ·-"' b.O 0
C.. VI ~Vi:2: SUi z
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial D D D fZl physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might D D D fZl
have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
a-b) No Impact. The proposed hotel at Legoland California Resort theme park will not affect existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities or require construction or expansion of
new facilities since the hotel will support visitor use of the theme park itself. Moreover, as part of the
City's Growth Management Program {GMP), a performance standard for parks was adopted. The park
performance standard requires that three acres of Community Park and Special Use Area per 1,000
population within a park district {quadrant) must be provided. The project site is located within Park
District #1 {Northwest Quadrant). The necessary park acreage to achieve the GMP standard {three
acres/1,000 population) for Park District #1 has been achieved; therefore, recreational facilities are
adequate and the project will not have any potential impacts on recreation facilities .
.... "'C .... v
..c:-2l
v "' "' c. .... "' c. .5 "§: ~ .5
XVI.TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC > .... .... c. .... .... = <: ; ; 0 <: <: v ~ ~ "' "' "' -.s¥.5 :5~ c. l:'i: .5 Cll ·-en ·c ...,; U) ·c .... <:
Would the project: 0 .!!." II) ao ·-"' b.O 0 ~v;:2: Cll ·-C.. VI _, Ill z
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing
measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation
system, taking into account all modes of transportation including
mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components D fZl D D
of the circulation system, including but not limited to
intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and
bicycle paths, and mass transit?
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program,
including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel
demand measures, or other standards established by the county D D D fZl
congestion management agency for designated roads or
highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in D D D fZl
substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sh;;trp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm D D D fZl
equipment)?
March 2016 -21-Initial Study
Project Name: LEGOLAND HOTEL CALIFORNIA II AKA LLC H20
Project No: SOP 1S-26/CDP 1S-SO
... "'C ... u Qj u "' ..c: ... "' c. ... "' c. E "§ () .§
XVI.TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC >:;: .... c. ... t> = c: ; i 0 c: c: ~ ~ "' "' "' -s~.S -5~ c.
t:Q: .§ Qj ·-"'·c...; II) "2 ... c:
Would the project: 0 .!!!1 II) b.O ·-"' bO 0 C.. VI ~iii:!: ~Vi z
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? D D D ~
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public
transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the D ~ D D
performance or safety of such facilities?
a) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The Legoland Hotel 2 Transportation Impact
Analysis Report (TIA) prepared for the project by STC Traffic, Inc. (June 2016) indicates that the project
will generate 2,000 Average Daily Trips (ADT) (100 AM and 140 PM peak hour trips). This traffic will utilize
Legoland Drive, The Crossings Drive, Palomar Airport Road and Cannon Road. This number represents a
worst-case assumption that 100% of hotel guests will not be staying there for the purpose of visiting
Legoland. On the contrary, the majority of guests at the existing Legoland Hotel are there to visit the
theme park. According to Legoland, the hotel is at capacity for most of the year, and refers theme park
guests to other hotels in the area. Having a second hotel on-site will actually reduce some of the vehicle
trips from off-site hotels to and from the theme park.
A majority of the hotel-related traffic will utilize Palomar Airport Road (PAR) to access the proposed hotel
after initial guest check-in. At the build-out Year 203S volumes, both with and without the project, two
intersections are projected to operate at a Level of Service (LOS) E: the intersections of PAR with Paseo
del Norte and Armada Drive. The Mobility Element of the Carlsbad General Plan notes that the city's
street network at build-out will have capacity constraints on some arterial streets and on freeways within
and adjacent to the city, operating at LOSE or LOS F. The General Plan indicates that Palomar Airport Road
between Interstate-S and College Boulevard is one of these arterial street facilities. The only way to
achieve LOS 0 for this segment of PAR would be to widen the arterial beyond the existing six-lane cross
section. However, creating streets wider than six lanes would create new challenges for intersection
operations, maintenance and stormwater management. Further, having more than three travel lanes in
each direction would be inconsistent with the Mobility Element's goals and policies for implementing
livable streets techniques, transportation demand management (TOM) and system management
programs to attain a more balanced multi-modal level of service (MMLOS) which will better manage the
transportation network as a whole. Thus, Mobility Element Policy 3-P.10 exempts PAR from Interstate-S
to College Boulevard (in addition to three other arterial street segments) from the vehicle LOS D standard
at the time of build-out. However, projects that add traffic to these exempted streets are required to
implement TOM strategies that will help improve circulation. A mitigation measure requires Legoland to
implement their TOM plan and strategies for this hotel as discussed under (f) below. The TIA indicates
that other than the above two intersections, all intersections and roadway segments will operate at
acceptable levels (LOS 0 or better) through build-out in 203S. The multimodal analysis and
recommendations in the TIA are discussed under (f) below. The proposed mitigation measures will result
in a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.
b) No Impact. In 2009 the congestion management agency (SANDAG) employed an "opt out" option
defined in Assembly Bill (AB) 2419. The congestion management program is no longer relevant to
development in the City of Carlsbad.
March 2016 -22-Initial Study
Project Name: LEGOLAND HOTEL CALIFORNIA II AKA LLC H20
Project No: SOP 15-26/CDP 15-50
c) No Impact. The proposed project does not include any aviation components. It would not,
therefore, result in a change of air traffic patterns or result in substantial safety risks. No impact assessed.
d) No Impact. All project circulation improvements will be designed and constructed to City
standards; and, therefore, would not result in design hazards. The proposed project is consistent with the
City's General Plan, Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan, and zoning. Therefore, it would not increase hazards
due to an incompatible use. No impact assessed.
e) No Impact. The proposed project has been designed to satisfy the emergency requirements of
the Fire and Police Departments. No impact assessed.
f) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The project is served by the North County
Transit District (NCTD). Access to transit would continue to occur at the existing NCTD bus stops on
Palomar Airport Road. One is located approximately 500 feet east of Armada Drive. There is an existing
pedestrian gate and walkway on Armada Drive approximately 1/10 mile north of Palomar Airport Road
which leads pedestrian visitors to the main pedestrian spine and the theme park entrance. That walkway
will be temporarily affected by the proposed hotel's construction. As shown on the project plans, a
temporary accessible pedestrian pathway will be provided throughout construction to ensure continued
pedestrian access from transit to the theme park entrance. The other bus stops are located approximately
200 feet from the Palomar Airport Road intersection with The Crossings Drive, and would provide access
via existing sidewalks and bike lanes to the employee parking entrance and the general entrance from The
Crossings Drive.
The Carlsbad Ranch Specific Plan, General Plan Mobility Element and the Climate Action Plan (CAP} require
traditional transportation alternatives to increase mobility and access, and to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions. Even though PAR from Interstate 5 to College Boulevard is exempted from meeting LOS D at
build-out, the Mobility Element notes that projects should implement strategies to help reduce overall
auto-oriented impacts to this corridor segment. The TIA prepared for the project addresses vehicular and
multi-modal levels of service for the project in accordance with the Mobility Element and listed measures
that Legoland already implements in support of alternative transportation, including:
• Financial incentives to employees for use of alternative modes during peak seasons/weekends
• Preferential employee carpool parking
• Shuttle service between local hotels and Legoland
• School and tour bus drop-off and parking near theme park entrance
• Pedestrian entrance from Grand Pacific Resort and private entrance from Sheraton Carlsbad
Resort
• Subsidized on-site meals for employees
• Free meals for employees on holidays and busiest days of the year
• Bike racks, lockers and showers for employees
• On-site services for existing hotel guests (restaurant, rental car and concierge services)
To address the Mobility Element guidance, a mitigation measure requires the above strategies to be
extended to the proposed hotel. In addition, the project plans show the locations of additional bike racks
that will be installed with construction of the project. The TIA analyzes the project's MMLOS for
pedestrian, bicycle and transit in addition to traffic. Per the Mobility Element, all modes need to be
operating at LOS D or better. The TIA indicates that the pedestrian mode will operate at LOS A, transit at
LOS C or better, but the bicycle mode will operate at LOS F on The Crossings Drive. The reason for this
LOS F is a gap in the bicycle lane network on The Crossings Drive identified in the TIA. There are currently
March 2016 -23-Initial Study
Project Name: LEGOLAND HOTEL CALIFORNIA II AKA LLC H20
Project No: SOP 15-26/CDP 15-50
no bicycle lanes on The Crossings Drive north of Palomar Airport Road to the existing Class I bicycle trail
that runs along the northerly perimeter of the Legoland property. Therefore, a mitigation measure has
been included to require the project tore-stripe The Crossings Drive to provide Class II bicycle lanes within
the existing paved street area on both sides of The Crossings Drive, from the intersection at Palomar
Airport Road to the entrance to the existing Class I bicycle trail at the northerly perimeter of the theme
park site. In addition, a crosswalk connection across The Crossings Drive to the existing Class I bicycle trail
will be installed. Incorporation of this mitigation measure will mitigate the identified impact and close
the gap in the bicycle lane network along the project site's frontage on The Crossings Drive. Inclusion of
the mitigation measures will reduce potential impacts related to transportation and traffic to a less than
significant level.
.... -c .... u Qj u "' "' c. ..<: .... c. .... "' E ·;: 0 .§
XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS >';: .... c. .... .... = c: ; ; 0 c: c: u ~ 13 "' "' "' -s~.5 -s~ c. r::: q: .§ Qj ·-1.1) '2...; Vl "2 .... c:
Would the project: ~~ 1.1) b.O ·-"' .., 0 ~iii:E ~u; z
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable D D D lg] Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater
treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the D D D lg] construction of which would cause significant environmental
effects?
c) Require or result inthe construction of new storm water drainage
facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of D D D lg]
which could cause significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded D D D lg]
entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider,
which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate D D D lg] capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to
the provider's existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to D D D lg] accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations D D D lg] related to solid waste?
a-g) No Impact. The proposed project will be required to comply with all Regional Water Quality
Control Board Requirements. The existing project wastewater demand capacity is 21.3 million gallons per
day (gpd) and the proposed project wastewater maximum daily demand is 52,371 gpd. The increase is
not considered significant and will not have an effect on the Encina Wastewater Treatment Facility's
capacity. All public facilities, including water facilities, wastewater treatment facilities and drainage
facilities, have been planned and designed through the Local Facilities Management Ordinance and the
individual Zone Plans to accommodate the growth projections for the City at build-out. The project site
is located in Zone 13 which is an infill zone that has not been developed to its capacity. There is adequate
wastewater, water, and storm water drainage capacity to accommodate the project as designed and/or
March 2016 -24-Initial Study
Project Name: LEGOLAND HOTEL CALIFORNIA II AKA LLC H20
Project No: SDP 15-26/CDP 15-50
conditioned. The project therefore does not result in development that will require expansion or
construction of new water facilities/supplies, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage facilities .
.... "tl .... u .cS u "' "' Q. .... "' Q.
E -~ 5 .§
XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE >:; .... Q. .... .... = c: i ; 0 c: c: u ·~ ~ "' "' "' ..1: .!:! ~ ..1: .!:! Q.
1::~ .... --.... -.§ Q) ·-"' ·c ...; en ·c .... c:
Would the project: ~~ "' bO ·-"' .., 0 ~iii::!: Q) ·-z -'Ill
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal D IZI D D
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means
that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when D D IZI D viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects
of other current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects?)
c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause the
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or D IZI D D
indirectly?
a) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The subject site does not support any
protected or sensitive biological resources or habitat types; it does not contain any fish or wildlife species;
and is not identified by any habitat conservation plan as containing a protected or rare or endangered
plant or animal species. The site is infill, already developed, and is not adjacent to any habitat preserves
or wildlife corridors. The project will not eliminate any known important examples of the major periods
of California history. The requirement for qualified paleontological, archaeological and Native American
monitors to be present during over-excavation of previously cut soils that are highly sensitive for fossils
and sensitive for archaeological and Tribal Cultural resources, and to implement an appropriate mitigation
program will ensure potential impacts on important examples oft he major periods of California prehistory
are addressed to a level that is less than significant.
b) Less than Significant Impact. The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) projects
regional growth for the greater San Diego area, and local General Plan land use policies are incorporated
into SANDAG projections. Based upon those projections, region-wide standards, including storm water
quality control, air quality standards, habitat conservation, congestion management standards, etc. are
established to reduce the cumulative impacts of development in the region. All of the city's development
standards and regulations are consistent with the region wide standards. The city's standards and
regulations, including grading standards, water quality and drainage standards, traffic standards, habitat
and cultural resource protection regulations, and public facility standards, ensure that development
within the city will not result in a significantly cumulatively considerable impact.
There are two regional issues that development within the City of Carlsbad has the potential for
cumulatively considerable impacts. Those issues are air quality and regional circulation. As described
above, air quality would essentially be the same whether or not the development is constructed. In the
March 2016 -25-Initial Study
Project Name: LEGOLAND HOTEL CALIFORNIA II AKA LLC H20
Project No: SOP 15-26/CDP 15-50
Transportation/Traffic section above, the project is identified as having potential impacts associated with
LOS at two intersections, and localized bicycle mode LOS adjacent to the project. The project has not
been identified as causing any potential regional circulation impacts. The proposed mitigation measures
for the localized impacts will reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
With regard to any other potential impacts associated with the project, city standards and regulations will
ensure that development of the site will not result in any significant cumulatively considerable impacts.
Thus, impacts are assessed to be less than significant.
c) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The project has been identified to have
potential impacts related to attenuating interior noise levels associated with the McClellan-Palomar
Airport and potential ground settlement in the cut-to-fill transition existing on the site from prior mass
grading. Mitigation measures have been incorporated for each of these impacts that reduce potential
impacts to a less than significant level. Therefore, with these mitigation measures, the project will not
have the potential to substantially adversely affect human beings either directly or indirectly.
March 2016 -26-Initial Study
Project Name: LEGOLAND HOTEL CALIFORNIA II AKA LLC H20
Project No: SDP 15-26/CDP 15-50
XIX. LIST OF MITIGATION MEASURES (if applicable)
CUL-l: Paleontological Monitoring
a. The applicant shall retain a qualified paleontologist to be present during over-excavation
grading operations on the east of the cut to fill transition and to implement an appropriate
mitigation program.
b. Once existing surface asphalt or other material has been removed and prior to any grading in
the area identified for over-excavation on the final approved grading plan, the paleontologist
shall review the grading plan, perform a walkover survey of the site and prepare a report
regarding the potential for the encounter of fossils during grading.
c. A copy of the paleontologist's report shall be provided to the City Planner prior to issuance of
a building permit.
d. The paleontologist shall at least perform periodic inspections of the site, or be present more
often if recommended in the report or if fossils are encountered during grading.
e. The paleontologist shall be allowed to divert or redirect grading in the area of an exposed
fossil in order to facilitate evaluation and, if necessary, salvage exposed fossils. Due to the
small nature of some of the fossils present in the geologic strata, it may be necessary to collect
matrix samples for laboratory processing through fine screens.
f. The paleontologist shall make periodic reports to the City Planner during the grading process.
g. All fossils collected may be donated to a public, non-profit institution with a research interest
in the materials, such as the San Diego Natural History Museum.
h. Any conflicts regarding the role of the paleontologist and the grading activities ofthe project
shall be resolved by the City Planner and City Engineer.
i. A final report shall be prepared and submitted to the City of Carlsbad Planning Division upon
completion.
CUL-2: Archaeological Monitoring
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall provide written evidence that a
certified archaeologist has been retained who: shall be present at the pre-grading conference,
shall be present during over-excavation grading operations on the east ofthe cut to fill transition
as shown on the final grading plan, shall coordinate with the Luiseno Native American monitor
per requirements of CUL-3, and shall establish procedures for archaeological resource
surveillance and temporary halting or diverting work to assess the nature and significance of any
find other than Tribal Cultural Resources addressed in CUL-3. If unanticipated archaeological
resources are encountered, the archaeologist shall report such findings to the applicant and the
city. If the archaeological resources are determined to be significant, the archaeologist shall
determine appropriate actions in cooperation with the applicant up to and including data
recovery in accordance with the City of Carlsbad Cultural Resource Guidelines. These actions, as
well as final mitigation and disposition of archaeological resources, shall be subject to the review
of the city. A final report shall be prepared and submitted to the City of Carlsbad Planning Division
and the South Coastal Information Center upon completion.
CUL-3: Tribal Cultural Resource Monitoring
March 2016
a. Prior to the commencement of any ground disturbing activities, the project developer shall
enter into a Pre-Excavation Agreement, otherwise known as a Tribal Cultural Resources
Treatment and Tribal Monitoring Agreement, with the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians
or other Luiseno tribe. This agreement will contain provisions to address the proper treatment
of any tribal cultural resources and/or Luiseno Native American human remains inadvertently
-27-Initial Study
March 2016
Project Name: LEGOLAND HOTEL CALIFORNIA II AKA LLC H20
Project No: SOP 15-26/CDP 15-50
discovered during the course ofthe project. The agreement will outline the roles and powers
of the Luiseno Native American monitors and the archaeologist.
b. A Luiseno Native American monitor shall be present during all ground disturbing activities
that may impact native soils. Ground disturbing activities may include, but are not be limited
to, archaeological studies, geotechnical investigations, clearing, grubbing, trenching,
excavation, preparation for utilities and other infrastructure, and grading activities.
c. Any and all uncovered artifacts of Luisefio Native American cultural importance shall be
returned to the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians, and/or the Most Likely Descendant, if
applicable, and not be curated.
d. The Luiseno Native American monitor shall be present at the project's preconstruction
meeting to consult with grading and excavation contractors concerning excavation schedules
and safety issues, as well as consult with the principal archaeologist concerning the proposed
archaeologist techniques and/or strategies for the project.
e. Luiseno Native American monitors and archaeological monitors shall have joint authority to
temporarily divert and/or halt construction activities. If tribal cultural resources are
discovered during construction, all earth moving activity within and around the immediate
discovery area must be diverted until the Luiseno Native American monitor and the
archaeologist can assess the nature and significance of the find.
f. If a significant tribal cultural resource(s) and/or unique archaeological resource(s) are
discovered during ground disturbing activities for this project, the San Luis Rey Band of
Mission Indians shall be notified and consulted regarding the respectful and dignified
treatment of those resources. Pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section
21083.2(b) avoidance is the preferred method of preservation for archaeological and tribal
cultural resources. If however, the Applicant is able to demonstrate that avoidance of a
significant and/or unique cultural resource is infeasible and a data recovery plan is authorized
by the City of Carlsbad as the lead agency, the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians shall be
consulted regarding the drafting and finalization of any such recovery plan.
g. When tribal cultural resources are discovered during the project, if the archaeologist collects
such resources, a Luiseno Native American monitor must be present during any testing or
cataloging of those resources. If the archaeologist does not collect the tribal cultural resources
that are unearthed during the ground disturbing activities, the Luiseno Native American
monitor, may in their discretion, collect said resources and provide them to the San Luis Rey
Band of Mission Indians for dignified and respectful treatment in accordance with the their
cultural and spiritual traditions.
h. If suspected Native American human remains are encountered, California Health and Safety
Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the San Diego County
Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin. Further, pursuant to California Public
Resources Code Section 5097.98(b) remains shall be left in place and free from disturbance
until a final decision as to the treatment and disposition has been made. Suspected Native
American remains shall be examined in the field and kept in a secure location at the site. A
Luiseno Native American monitor shall be present during the examination of the remains. If
the San Diego County Coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the Native
American Heritage Commission (NAHC) must be contacted within 24 hours. The NAHC must
then immediately notify the "Most Likely Descendant" of receiving notification of the
discovery. The Most Likely Descendant shall then make recommendations within 48 hours,
and engage in consultation concerning treatment of remains as provided in Public Resources
Code 5097.98.
-28-Initial Study
Project Name: LEGOLAND HOTEL CALIFORNIA II AKA LLC H20
Project No: SOP 15-26/CDP 15-50
i. In the event that fill material is imported into the project area, the fill shall be clean of tribal
cultural resources and documented as such. If fill material is to be utilized and/or exported
from areas within the project site, then that fill material shall be analyzed and confirmed by
an archeologist and Luiseno Native American monitor that such fill material does not contain
tribal cultural resources.
j. No testing, invasive or non-invasive, shall be permitted on any recovered tribal cultural
resources without the written permission of the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians.
k. Prior to the release of the grading bond, a monitoring report and/or evaluation report, if
appropriate, which describes the results, analysis and conclusions of the monitoring program
shall be submitted by the archaeologist, along with the Luisef\o Native American monitor's
notes and comments, to the City of Carlsbad for approval. Said report shall be subject to
confidentiality as an exception to the Public Records Act and will not be available for public
distribution.
GE0-1: Prior to issuance of grading and building permits, as applicable, the project design shall
incorporate the recommendations contained within the Leighton and Associates, Inc.,
Geotechnical Update Report dated November 23, 2015, as amended.
N-1: Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit for review and approval by the
Building Official and City Planner or designees an interior noise analysis compliant with City
standards to demonstrate that the proposed hotel design would limit interior noise to the City's
45 CNEL interior noise standard and that the restaurant/retail uses design would limit inte~ior
noise to the City's 50 CNEL interior noise standard.
T-1: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit for review and approval by the
City Engineer and City Traffic Engineer or their designees a street striping plan showing installation
of 1) Class II bicycle lanes on both sides ofThe Crossings Drive between Palomar Airport Road and
the entrance to the Class I bicycle trail north of the Legoland property; and 2) a crosswalk
connection across The Crossings Drive at the Class I bicycle trail. Bicycle lanes and the crosswalk
shall be installed in accordance with the approved plan to the satisfaction of the City Engineer
prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the hotel.
T-2: Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide to the City Planner and City
Engineer or designees a written commitment from the owner's authorized representative that
the Legoland Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan and strategies described in the
Greenhouse Gas Study and Transportation Impact Analysis shall be extended to this hotel and
implemented on an on-going basis for the life ofthe project.
March 2016 -29-Initial Study
Project Name: LEGOLAND HOTEL CALIFORNIA II AKA LLC H20
Project No: SOP 15-26/CDP 15-50
EARLIER ANALYSES
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or
more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section
15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the
scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,
and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier
analysis.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document
and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
EARLIER ANALYSIS USED AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of Carlsbad
Planning Division located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008.
1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (EIR 13-02}, City
of Carlsbad Planning Division, September 2015.
2. Carlsbad General Plan, City of Carlsbad Planning Division, dated September 2015, as updated.
3. City of Carlsbad Municipal Code {CMC}, Title 21 Zoning, City of Carlsbad Planning Division, as updated.
4. Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad (HMP}, City of Carlsbad
Planning Division, final approval dated November 2004.
5. San Diego Regional Airport Authority/San Diego County Airport Land Use Commission. McClellan-
Palomar Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP}. Amended December 1, 2011.
6. Geotechnical Update Report, Proposed Castle Hotel Expansion, Legoland Theme Park, Leighton and
Associates, Inc., November 23, 2015.
7. Legoland Hotel Project Greenhouse Gas Analysis, Rincon, June 2016.
8. Preliminary Hydrology Report for LLC H20, DCI Engineers, June 24, 2016.
9. Priority Development Project Storm Water Quality Management Plan for LLC H20, DCI Engineers, June
24,2016.
10. Legoland Hotel2 Transportation Impact Analysis Report, STC Traffic, Inc., June 2016.
March 2016 -30-Initial Study
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
PROJECT NAME: LEGOLAND HOTEL CALIFORNIA II AKA LLC H20
PROJECT NO: SOP 15-26/CDP 15-50
APPROVAL DATE/RESOLUTION NUMBER(S): ------
City of
Carlsbad
The following environmental mitigation measures were incorporated into the Conditions of Approval for this project in order to mitigate identified
environmental impacts to a level of insignificance. A completed and signed checklist for each mitigation measure indicates that this mitigation measure
has been complied with and implemented, and fulfills the City's monitoring requirements with respect to Assembly Bill 3180 (Public Resources Code
Section 21081.6}.
MITIGATION MEASURE
CUL-l Paleontological Monitoring
a. The applicant shall retain a qualified paleontologist to be present
during over-excavation grading operations on the east of the cut to
fill transition and to implement an appropriate mitigation program.
b. Once existing surface asphalt or other material has been removed
and prior to any grading in the area identified for over-excavation
on the final approved grading plan, the paleontologist shall review
the grading plan, perform a walkover survey of the site and prepare
a report regarding the potential for the encounter of fossils during
grading.
c. A copy of the paleontologist's report shall be provided to the City
Planner prior to issuance of a building permit.
d. The paleontologist shall at least perform periodic inspections ofthe
site, or be present more often if recommended in the report or if
fossils are encountered du~ing grading.
e. The paleontologist shall be allowed to divert or redirect grading in
the area of an exposed fossil in order to facilitate evaluation and, if
necessary, salvage exposed fossils. Due to the small nature of some
Explanation of Headings
Type= Project, ongoing, cumulative.
Monitoring Dept.= Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure.
Shown on Plans= When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be initialed and dated.
Verified Implementation= When mitigation measure has been implemented, this column will be initialed and dated.
Remarks= Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other information.
cu "' c c. ~ c 0 10 .. .... 0: 10 0.0 0.0 c .... c c cu c c ... ·;: E 0 cu "' .s .s t: c ] E i:
'E ·-10 :: t;:,g! 10 c c. ·;:: 0.. E 0 0 cu 0 ..c ~g ~ ::!5 :Eo VI
Prior to issuance of PLN/ENG
grading permit/on-going
Legend
PLN Planning Division
ENG Land Development Engineering Division
BLDG Building Division
Page 1 of 6
MITIGATION MEASURE
CUL-2
of the fossils present in the geologic strata, it may be necessary to
collect matrix samples for laboratory processing through fine
screens.
f. The paleontologist shall make periodic reports to the City Planner
during the grading process.
g. All fossils collected may be donated to a public, non-profit
institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the San
Diego Natural History Museum.
h. Any conflicts regarding the role of the paleontologist and the
grading activities of the project shall be resolved by the City Planner
and City Engineer.
i. A final report shall be prepared and submitted to the City of
Carlsbad Planning Division upon completion.
Archaeological Monitoring
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall provide
written evidence that a certified archaeologist has been retained who:
shall be present at the pre-grading conference, shall be present during
over-excavation grading operations on the east of the cut to fill
transition as shown on the final grading plan, shall coordinate with the
Tribe's Native American monitor per requirements of CUL-3, and shall
establish procedures for archaeological resource surveillance and
temporary halting or diverting work to assess the nature and
significance of any find other than Tribal Cultural Resources addressed
in CUL-3. If unanticipated archaeological resources are encountered,
the archaeologist shall report such findings to the applicant and the city.
If the archaeological resources are determined to be significant, the
archaeologist shall determine appropriate actions in cooperation with
the applicant up to and including data recovery in accordance with the
City of Carlsbad Cultural Resource Guidelines. These actions, as well as
final mitigation and disposition of archaeological resources, shall be
subject to the review of the city. A final report shall be prepared and
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
PROJECT NAME: LEGOLAND HOTEL CALIFORNIA II AKA LLC H20
PROJECT NUMBER: SOP 15-26/CDP 15-50
(1) Q. ~ bO c ·.:: -~ c 0 :!!
Prior to issuance of
grading permit/on-going
... bO c c (1) ·.:: E s~ ·c: ~ 0 (1) :!!c
PLN
"' c .!!! Cl. c 0 c j
Ill
c i c
" (1) .2! ~ ·~::A
(1) E >-
~ "' E ~
Page 2 of6
MITIGATION MEASURE
CUL-3
submitted to the City of Carlsbad Planning Division and the South
Coastal Information Center upon completion.
Tribal Cultural Resource Monitoring
a. Prior to the commencementof any ground disturbing activities, the
project developer shall enter into a Pre-Excavation Agreement,
otherwise known as a Tribal Cultural Resources Treatment and
Tribal Monitoring Agreement, with the San Luis Rey Band of Mission
Indians or other Luiseiio tribe. This agreement will contain
provisions to address the proper treatment of any tribal cultural
resources and/or Luiseiio Native American human remains
inadvertently discovered during the course of the project. The
agreement will outline the roles and powers of the Luiseiio Native
American monitors and the archaeologist.
b. A Luiseno Native American monitor shall be present during all
ground disturbing activities that may impact native soils. Ground
disturbing activities may include, but are not be limited to,
archaeological studies, geotechnical investigations, clearing,
grubbing, trenching, excavation, preparation for utilities and other
infrastructure, and grading activities.
c. Any and all uncovered artifacts of Luiseno Native American cultural
importance shall be returned to the San Luis Rey Band of Mission
Indians, and/or the Most Likely Descendant, if applicable, and not
be curated.
d. The Luiseno Native American monitor shall be present at the
project's preconstruction meeting to consult with grading and
excavation contractors concerning excavation schedules and safety
issues, as well as consult with the principal archaeologist concerning
the proposed archaeologist techniques and/or strategies for the
project.
e. Luiseno Native American monitors and archaeological monitors
shall have joint authority to temporarily divert and/or halt
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
PROJECT NAME: LEGOLAND HOTEL CALIFORNIA II AKA LLC H20
PROJECT NUMBER: SOP 15-26/CDP 15-50
Ill c. ?:
~ ·;: .s "2 0 :!:
Prior to issuance of
grading permit/on-going
~1: ·~ ~ ~t:
1: "' 0 c. :!:~
PLN
Ill 1: .!!! Q.
1: 0
1: ~ 0 .c: Ill
1: .2 .... .l!l 1:
"CI Ill
111 E c;:: Ill
"i: a. ~.5
~ "' E ~
Page 3 of 6
MITIGATION. MEASURE
construction activities. If tribal cultural resources are discovered
during construction, all earth moving activity within and around the
immediate discovery area must be diverted until the Luisefio Native
American monitor and the archaeologist can assess the nature and
significance of the find.
f. If a significant tribal cultural resource(s) and/or unique
archaeological resource(s) are discovered during ground disturbing
activities for this project, the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians
shall be notified and consulted regarding the respectful and
dignified treatment of those resources. Pursuant to California
Public Resources Code Section 21083.2(b) avoidance is the
preferred method of preservation for archaeological and tribal
cultural resources. If however, the Applicant is able to demonstrate
that avoidance of a significant and/or unique cultural resource is
infeasible and a data recovery plan is authorized by the City of
Carlsbad as the lead agency, the San Luis Rey Band of Mission
Indians shall be consulted regarding the drafting and finalization of
any such recovery plan.
g. When tribal cultural resources are discovered during the project, if
the archaeologist collects such resources, a Luisefio Native
American monitor must be present during any testing or cataloging
of those resources. If the archaeologist does not collect the tribal
cultural resources that are unearthed during the ground disturbing
activities, the Luisefio Native American monitor, may in their
discretion, collect said resources and provide them to the San Luis
Rey Band of Mission Indians for dignified and respectful treatment
in accordance with the their cultural and spiritual traditions.
h. If suspected Native American human remains are encountered,
California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no
further disturbance shall occur until the San Diego County Coroner
has made the necessary findings as to origin. Further, pursuant to
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
PROJECT NAME: LEGOLAND HOTEL CALIFORNIA II AKA LLC H20
PROJECT NUMBER: SOP 15-26/CDP 15-50
Cll a. ~
t>.O ·c ·;:
·0 ... "2 0 :!:
t>.O~ c Cll ·;: E s t: "2 ::t 0 Cll :!:c
Ill c
.!!! a. c 0 c ~ .c "'
c ~ ~
"0 Cll ~ ~ •t: Q.
~.§
.f .. E ~
Page 4 of6
>
MITIGATION MEASURE
California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98{b) remains shall
be left in place and free from disturbance until a final decision as to
the treatment and disposition has been made. Suspected Native
American remains shall be examined in the field and kept in a secure
location at the site. A Luiseno Native American monitor shall be
present during the examination of the remains. If the San Diego
County Coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the
Native American Heritage Commission {NAHC) must be contacted
within 24 hours. The NAHC must then immediately notify the "Most
Likely Descendant" of receiving notification of the discovery. The
Most Likely Descendant shall then make recommendations within
48 hours, and engage in consultation concerning treatment of
remains as provided in Public Resources Code 5097.98.
i. In the event that fill material is imported into the project area, the
fill shall be clean of tribal cultural resources and documented as
such. If fill material is to be utilized and/or exported from areas
within the project site, then that fill material shall be analyzed and
confirmed by an archeologist and Luiseno Native American monitor
that such fill material does not contain tribal cultural resources.
j. No testing, invasive or non-invasive, shall be permitted on any
recovered tribal cultural resources without the written permission
of the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians.
k. Prior to the release ofthe grading bond, a monitoring report and/or
evaluation report, if appropriate, which describes the results,
analysis and conclusions of the monitoring program shall be
submitted by the archaeologist, along with the Luiseno Native
American monitor's notes and comments, to the City of Carlsbad for
approval. Said report shall be subject to confidentiality as an
exception to the Public Records Act and will not be available for
public distribution.
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
PROJECT NAME: LEGOLAND HOTEL CALIFORNIA II AKA LLC H20
PROJECT NUMBER: SOP 15-26/CDP 15-50
Q) Ill c Q. ~ c 0 .... ns ...
b,O b,O c ii: .C! c c Q) c c ·.:: ·.:: E 0 al ~ Xl -~ .s t: c ... ·;: ~ ;: ct:.Jl! "' c E 0 0 7i: a. 0 Q) .s:: Q) E :1 ::!!! ::!c II) >-
Page 5 of 6
PROJECT NAME: LEGOLAND HOTEL CALIFORNIA II AKA LLC H20
PROJECT NUMBER: SOP 15-26/CDP 15-50
MITIGATION MEASURE
GE0-1 Prior to issuance of grading and building permits, as applicable, the
project design shall incorporate the recommendations contained within
the Leighton and Associates, Inc., Geotechnical Update Report dated
November 23, 2015, as amended.
<II ~
~ ·;: .s ·c:
0 :!:
Prior to issuance of
grading permit/prior to
issuance of building
permit
... bOC c Cl) ·;: E 0 ... ..... ·-ns c a. 0 <II :Eo
ENG/BLDG
N-1 I Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit for I Prior to issuance of I PLN/BLDG
review and approval by the Building Official and City Planner or building permit
designees an interior noise analysis compliant with City standards to
demonstrate that the proposed hotel design would limit interior noise
to the City's 45 CNEL interior noise standard and that the
restaurant/retail uses design would limit interior noise to the City's 50
CNEL interior noise standard.
T-1 I Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit for Prior to issuance of I ENG/BLDG
review and approval by the City Engineer and City Traffic Engineer or grading permit/prior to
their designees a street striping plan showing installation of 1) Class II occupancy
bicycle lanes on both sides of The Crossings Drive between Palomar
Airport Road and the entrance to the Class I bicycle trail north of the
Legoland property; and 2) a crosswalk connection across The Crossings
Drive at the Class I bicycle trail. Bicycle lanes and the crosswalk shall be
installed in accordance with the approved plan to the satisfaction ofthe
City Engineer prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the
hotel.
T-2 I Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide to the I Prior to issuance of I ENG/PLN
City Planner and City Engineer or designees a written commitment from building permit/ongoing
the owner's authorized representative that the Legoland
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan and strategies
described in the Greenhouse Gas Study and Transportation Impact
Analysis shall be extended to this hotel and implemented on an on-
going basis for the life of the project.
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
"' c <: 0 ns .. 15: ns .... c <: 0 1! ~
I
~ <: ~ q::.J!:! ns ·.: a. E .s= ~.E <II
Ill 1:1:
Page 6 of 6